modify_organization

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it modifies properties and returns a dict with status and message, but does not mention side effects, required permissions, or reversibility of the modification.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured, with a main sentence, a prerequisite section, and explicitly labeled Args and Returns. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the inputs and output adequately, and includes a prerequisite step. However, given the absence of annotations and the fact that this is a modification tool, it could benefit from mentioning that changes are applied immediately or require specific permissions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so by defining org_id as the ID of the organization to modify and name as an optional new name, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Modifie les propriétés d'une organisation', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_organization, describe_organization, and list_organizations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a prerequisite to use list_organizations to obtain a valid org_id, providing context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for modifying organization access.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.